Baby P witch hunt

[the7Vabo]

I watched a full documentary on Tik Tok about Baby P today.

The thing I’m most struck by is that social worker/s were fired, a doctor is in permanent psychiatric care, social workers received death threats and in the middle of it all the mother receives a minimum 5 year jail sentence and has been in & out of jail since 2013.

There were clear failing but a lot of it was against the background of an overwhelmed system. In particular the clinic where the doctor worked had been flagged as dangerous to senior management by two doctors who resigned and another doctor was on stress leave. There was no access to notes at this clinic. The doctor who last saw Baby P had no access to notes, wasn’t familiar with procedures around child protection in the UK, was working without the assistance of a nurse who might have helped her. She saw Baby P for a specific reason to rule out underlying conditions that might explain his injuries. She was blamed for missing that he had a broken back but it’s not clear when his back was broken.
Her face was plastered all over the papers and she went to train stations multiple times with thoughts of ending her life, asked for her name to be removed from the register and is now in psychiatric care.

The social worker directly involved might have been able to do more but she did a lot including removing Peter, taking him to hospital, contacting the police and immediately contacting the mother when she heard she had a boyfriend.

The head of the area had serious death threats and was fired.

I know people say the different agencies between them had contact 60 times and they shouldn’t have missed it. But that also means there was a lot of effort being made to protect him.

There were reports written immediately afterwards blaming various social workers, the police and medical staff involved with the exception of that doctor seemed to get off more lightly.

The thing that floors me is the mother got min 5 years and was first released in 2013!!! It’s bloody extraordinary. I saw a clip of her speaking to social workers, she was v convincing!

I just can’t get over how a doctor can have a nervous breakdown but the mother is meanwhile out & about!!!! She back in now for breach of conditions I think. I keep thinking about that doctor.

AIBU?!

And Social Services are completely overwhelmed, with caseloads too high and not enough staff. Social Services is in crisis and has been for a long time.

Men with huge vulnerabilities are often victims too. They are often at home, too scared to go out.

This isn't the group of men involved here. These guys know exactly what they are doing. They take over the lives of vulnerable women with purpose - they take their money, abuse their kids. This isn't asd.

She's on licence.

You breach your licence conditions and you go back in.

Rinse and repeat for the rest of her life.

How might that latter group of men be encouraged to take a different approach? What factors are at play, if they started work as say as labourer is the pay too poor, housing opportunities too few, benefits better

With respect that is classist nonsense. Yes executive function exists but it’s not class related. It is related to poverty, neglect and deprivation. Of course more working class folk are in that position. but their exec function isn’t determined by class.

yes definetely a soft touch, should have been given a longer sentence to start with or put down.
An animal would be if it did that to a human?

exactly so it cant be that bad in there if she keeps going back in.

all she has to do is stick to the licence conditions.

@Arran2024

This is really interesting as in cases such as Victoria Climbie for example, her aunt was found to be an instigator and had no special needs or disabilities. In the case of Isabella her mother Chelsea Gleason-Mitchell, had no known disabilities and was a nursery nurse.

Lucy Letby acted alone and had no known vulnerabilities or male manipulator. The mother of baby P had no known disabilities, she knew right from wrong.

You seem to be suggesting that female child abusers are all vulnerable and have no agency. That they are all victims to male scum bags but that isn't the case. If they were so affected that they didn't know right from wrong, then I doubt they'd go to prison.

Rose West had a very low IQ and was severely abused as a child (as was Fred) but she knew what she was doing was wrong.

Of course it's class related, because the people with poor executive functioning, asd etc don't do well and can't create good lives. It is a self perpetuating cycle as their children go on to repeat.

The idea that you eradicate poverty and everyone lives nice comfortable lives is wishful thinking. They put so many initiatives in to lift people from poverty in the post war period and still some families were not able to benefit.

I usedvto be all for nurture over nature - I adopted two children from the care system. But it's not that easy. Genetics play a huge part imo.

And it's not just exec functioning. It's asd, adhd, genetic deletions, learning disabilities - my girls have a genetic deletion which is associated with learning disabilities. You could give their birth mother millions and she still wouldn't be able to look after her kids, keep her house tidy, stop hanging out with paedophiles...

This article with baby p's grandmother gives a good explanation for how vulnerable his mother was I think.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2009/aug/16/baby-p-family

Obviously I'm not claiming that all female abusers are the same. We are talking here about the baby p set up - as an adopter, our children weren't killed so their stories are not in the media. But so many of the other adopters I know have children from exactly this set up. Vulnerable woman has kids, gets house, is targeted by man who abuses her and the kids. We could anticipate this could be a problem when maybe we can't anticipate a Lucy Letby.

Just because someone is working class does not mean they have ‘poor executive functioning’. That’s deterministic and inaccurate and insulting to people who are working class.

In truth, people who commit horrible crimes are often a mix of personality disorder, psychosis, psychopathy …Abuse and neglect contribute to the way an individual functions, feels empathy etc. That is not determined by class. Class does impact life chances obviously but being working class doesn’t always mean poverty and neglect does it? My Dad was a postman. Definitely we. We were a bit skint as a family but never neglected or abused.

Of course poverty and neglect are significant but the poster said ‘working class people don’t have good executive function. That’s a reach and a bit insulting tbh.

I only referred to middle class people in my comment. I said nothing about working class people. Of course I don't believe that being working class means you have no executive functioning skills. I grew up in a council house.

You said middle class people have better coping skills. Better than who?

Absolutely this! How many times have we seen the absent father bleating about how devastated he is, where the fuck were you!?

People who have fallen off the cliff in terms of parenting.

@PassingStranger You might be happier living in the USA with the death penalty, in the meantime, thank God you are not a judge.

Also Tracey Connelly had a very unacceptable upbringing. I’ve just been reading article which interviews her mother, It was in the Guardian so free and easy to find. It is absolutely awful, Tracey Connelly was sent to a boarding school for Emotional snd Behavioural needs. You really have severe issues to go to one of these. They are for SEN dc and she would have had a statement. Reading the interview, she had no chance of establishing a loving home for her children.

So why have 4 or more kids then. It's not compulsory.

Op you got pushback for this but I agree with you. As an observer of British society today, there are lots of signals pointing to diminished family values. You can read these on mn everyday.

People pushing their kids out the door when they turn 17, or starting to charge rent (cos "it teaches responsibility" like there's no other way of doing so and societies who don't do this are irresponsible people).

Families who don't see each other for years, grannies who shouldn't see or hug their grandkids cos they might meddle too much. Grannies who wish to charge their daughters for taking care of their grandkids.

" Go non contact" is the favourite motto, for every disagreement. I'm not talking about rare abusive situations. Just the general attitude to general disagreement. "My mil came 1 m close to my kid with hot tea. She said I should bathe her more often. So , I'll reduce our visits to once a quarter. "

"I don't like my 5 year old step kid, is that ok?" "oh yes darling that's completely normal just go out when she comes".. on and on.

People won't agree with any of this because they haven't experienced any other way and think its normal. They'll find logic in it, and justify it. But in the end, it is obvious to outsiders that there's something wrong. Yes abuse happens everywhere but the level, here seems high. Family members who want no part in it, not wanting to call ss, not getting involved, not fostering or helping the kids in danger also bothers me so much. Not in every case of course, but it also happens and again is a sign of broken family values.

As said if an animal did what they did to Peter it would be put down, but no they get prison which isn't enough and they don't get it for very long either.
Then the scumbags have got to be monitored all the time. They are forever a drain on society, they were must likely on benefits before they went inside. They have to be kept by the taxpayer while in prison and no doubt on benefits when they are released. Completely useless objects.
Country does not need them.
Most normal people are sick of scumbags like this.
As we have no death penalty perhaps we could help them along the way by leaving some pills in the cell.
The country might be able to afford other things then.

Connelly didn't have learning difficulties, she was given the choice of going into a care home or to a boarding school and she chose the school. She also got some GCSES and has no LDs.

She was called manipulative by the judge who believed her experience of social services gave her the knowledge of what to say to social services about her son.

She didn't let them know when her new boyfriend moved in and pretended she didn't know her son was being abused. He was covered in injuries at the time of his death including a broken back and had had nails ripped out. Yet she swore she didn't know.

Instead Connelly wrote on social media about how in love she was with her boyfriend.

She was a horribly lazy bitch as well.

According to the articles I've read, the house was filthy and covered in feces, both animal and human.

TW

Her boyfriend trained his rockweiller to bite Peter.

You cannot go to a boarding school for EBD as it was called without what was then a statement. A child gets no choice. You don’t understand anything if you believe this. Plus you can have both at the same time! You are in care in the holidays. She clearly had special needs and they were recognised.

Yoy don’t understand the sentence either. It was indeterminate with a 5 year minimum. That minimum was possibly too short but it wasn’t called in. Maybe you would all prefer the death penalty? I would not. Women like her don’t make rational decisions about having dc. If you think they do, you know nothing about the behaviour of men.

Where did you get the information from? According to what I've read she had no learning difficulties:

Connelly claims she was being physically abused, and eventually because of the situation at home with her mother she was taken under the wing of Islington social services along with her relative.

She was given the choice of being placed into care in a children's home or a live-in reform school.
www.theguardian.com/society/2009/aug/11/tracey-connelly-baby-p-mother

She was intelligent enough to know to cover bruising on her child's face with chocolate spread and put him in a pushchair because he was too floppy to sit up.